“While F-35 is capable of stand-off jamming for other aircraft — providing 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter — F-35s can also operate in closer proximity to the threat (‘stand-in’) to provide jamming power many multiples that of any legacy fighter.”
I am very sure the AN/ALR-94 is an old system to be labeled as legacy in comparison to the ASQ-239. Lets just say for the sake of argument that both the F-22 and F-35 have had an RCS of .0001m2. But because the radiated power of the F-35 has 10 times the power to further suppress the F-22s radar than the F-22's EW system does to the F-35s radar would this put the F-35 at a .00001m2 RCS? If you got 10 times the jamming power would this cause a 1/10th reduction in RCS or there is another way to calculate jamming power to RCS reduction?
By: SpudmanWP
- 19th February 2019 at 05:48Permalink
Despite what members of the Gripen/Rafale fanboi club tell you, EW does not reduce the RCS of the fighter.
A jammer only works in proportion to its ability to detect and mimic the adversary's radar signal.
For instance, the radar of an F-4 should be relatively easy to jam with an 80's 4th gen jammer but that same jammer would have extreme difficulty even identifying a modern AESA signal let alone the LPI versions found on the F-22/35.
By: XB-70
- 19th February 2019 at 11:11Permalink- Edited 19th February 2019 at 11:13
...
but SNR is proportional to RCS..
Related...and actually inversely so for jamming, and so the return signal is masked similarly to how it would have been with a lower RCS asset. The difference is that, by raising the noise level up instead of dragging the echo signal down, you eliminate the 'unaware that anyone is there' factor. So it is similar...not identical!
By: halloweene
- 19th February 2019 at 13:13Permalink- Edited 19th February 2019 at 13:17
Despite what members of the Gripen/Rafale fanboi club tell you, EW does not reduce the RCS of the fighter.
A jammer only works in proportion to its ability to detect and mimic the adversary's radar signal.
For instance, the radar of an F-4 should be relatively easy to jam with an 80's 4th gen jammer but that same jammer would have extreme difficulty even identifying a modern AESA signal let alone the LPI versions found on the F-22/35.
µpure blah blah without any substance. Arguement if you want to be understood. Of course it soesnt change the physics of signal teturn. However in=t can inject in data.
SPectra have three main goals : detect incomin wave (planeform will guide them to hotspots), than injec directionnally low level and extremely short signals. The idea is not to stay undetected, but to break kill chain.
New
Posts: 550
By: St. John
- 19th February 2019 at 15:07Permalink
µpure blah blah without any substance. Arguement if you want to be understood. Of course it soesnt change the physics of signal teturn. However in=t can inject in data.
SPectra have three main goals : detect incomin wave (planeform will guide them to hotspots), than injec directionnally low level and extremely short signals. The idea is not to stay undetected, but to break kill chain.
Hang on, hang on. I thought the active cancellation thing was supposed to make you undetected but now you're just talking about breaking the kill chain, which is what any jamming system does.
New
Posts: 376
By: panzerfeist1
- 19th February 2019 at 16:24Permalink
By: moon_light
- 20th February 2019 at 03:05Permalink
Related...and actually inversely so for jamming, and so the return signal is masked similarly to how it would have been with a lower RCS asset. The difference is that, by raising the noise level up instead of dragging the echo signal down, you eliminate the 'unaware that anyone is there' factor. So it is similar...not identical!
You are correct, i should have said the ratio is the same in both case.
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th February 2019 at 07:16Permalink
Momentum Builds For U.S. Navy To Declare The F-35C Combat-Ready
By: TomcatViP
- 20th February 2019 at 15:28Permalink
8 in 2020 and up to 80 in the next 5 years.
I am not sure this is a good news for the Eurocanards, invariably lowering the cost and increasing the attractiveness of their major competitor.
Don't count on the USAF "ever" getting the F-15X.....:stupid:
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st February 2019 at 05:05Permalink
Ah forgot. Trump signed a bill to prevent sales of F-35 to Turkey.
It's called "politics" and in the end Turkey will get the F-35. (and the Patriot) ;)
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st February 2019 at 05:06Permalink
8 in 2020 and up to 80 in the next 5 years.
I am not sure this is a good news for the Eurocanards, invariably lowering the cost and increasing the attractiveness of their major competitor.
By: halloweene
- 21st February 2019 at 11:50Permalink
It is probably going to happen because in several area the F-15 is still a beast and can, for example, lift very large ammos (such as hypersonic missiles). It ca also be much faster for a "push". So why not?
By: SpudmanWP
- 21st February 2019 at 17:49Permalink
"Why not" because it's more expensive and you don't buy a fighter and then come up with a mission, you define the mission and then buy the aircraft.
The "mission" is to replace CONUS ANG F-15Cs that will never need to haul a hypersonic missile, never carry more than 4 AMRAAMs, never go above mach 1.2 in combat, etc.
Stop trying to excuse what is so obviously a Corporate Welfare buy that the USAF has repeatedly said that they do not have a mission for and do not want.
New
Posts: 550
By: St. John
- 21st February 2019 at 18:19Permalink
By: F/A-XX
- 22nd February 2019 at 02:51Permalink- Edited 25th February 2019 at 02:11
If the USAF has to get some F-15Xs they'd be better off with two-seaters to supplement the F-15E fleet. The F-35A is a great aircraft but it doesn't have quite the same legs. Had they the money I imagine the USAF would want a new design to replace the F-15E and it would probably be the size of the F-111 if not slightly larger.
If the DoD was serious about getting some new thoroughbred air-superiority fighters to replace aging F-15s then we should cough up the cash and pay to restart production of an updated F-22. Yet I don't think it is being taken that seriously. This F-15X order is just about keeping Boeing's military division busy and the production line running. It's quite unfortunate some short-sighted individuals prevented the same from being done with the the F-22, which the USAF actually wanted more of.
New
Posts: 550
By: St. John
- 22nd February 2019 at 10:24Permalink
If the USAF has to get some F-15Xs they'd be better off with two-seaters to supplement the F-15E fleet. The F-35A is a great aircraft but it doesn't have quite the same legs. Had they the money I imagine the USAF would want a new design to replace the F-15E and it would probably be the size of the F-111 if not slightly larger.
If the DoD was serious about getting some new thoroughbred air-superiority fighters to replace aging F-15 then we should cough up the cash and pay to restart production of an updated F-22. Yet I don't think it is being taken that seriously. This F-15X order is just about keeping Boeing's military division busy and the production line running. It's quite unfortunate some short-sighted individuals prevented the same from being done with the the F-22, which the USAF actually wanted more of.
I agree, the F-22 was originally planned to replace the F-15C/D, and that's exactly what it should have done. Cutting production short just led to a ridiculously high unit price.
Posts: 376
By: panzerfeist1 - 19th February 2019 at 04:24 Permalink
I got another question on the F-35s EW systems. https://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/bae-systems-inches-out-in-public-on-electronic-warfare/ "
“While F-35 is capable of stand-off jamming for other aircraft — providing 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter — F-35s can also operate in closer proximity to the threat (‘stand-in’) to provide jamming power many multiples that of any legacy fighter.”
I am very sure the AN/ALR-94 is an old system to be labeled as legacy in comparison to the ASQ-239. Lets just say for the sake of argument that both the F-22 and F-35 have had an RCS of .0001m2. But because the radiated power of the F-35 has 10 times the power to further suppress the F-22s radar than the F-22's EW system does to the F-35s radar would this put the F-35 at a .00001m2 RCS? If you got 10 times the jamming power would this cause a 1/10th reduction in RCS or there is another way to calculate jamming power to RCS reduction?
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 19th February 2019 at 05:48 Permalink
Despite what members of the Gripen/Rafale fanboi club tell you, EW does not reduce the RCS of the fighter.
A jammer only works in proportion to its ability to detect and mimic the adversary's radar signal.
For instance, the radar of an F-4 should be relatively easy to jam with an 80's 4th gen jammer but that same jammer would have extreme difficulty even identifying a modern AESA signal let alone the LPI versions found on the F-22/35.
Posts: 999
By: moon_light - 19th February 2019 at 06:06 Permalink
A jammer can't reduce RCS of fighter, but SNR is proportional to RCS, so having 1/100 RCS is the same as having a jammer 100 times more powerful
Posts: 333
By: XB-70 - 19th February 2019 at 11:11 Permalink - Edited 19th February 2019 at 11:13
Related...and actually inversely so for jamming, and so the return signal is masked similarly to how it would have been with a lower RCS asset. The difference is that, by raising the noise level up instead of dragging the echo signal down, you eliminate the 'unaware that anyone is there' factor. So it is similar...not identical!
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 19th February 2019 at 13:13 Permalink - Edited 19th February 2019 at 13:17
µpure blah blah without any substance. Arguement if you want to be understood. Of course it soesnt change the physics of signal teturn. However in=t can inject in data.
SPectra have three main goals : detect incomin wave (planeform will guide them to hotspots), than injec directionnally low level and extremely short signals. The idea is not to stay undetected, but to break kill chain.
Posts: 550
By: St. John - 19th February 2019 at 15:07 Permalink
Hang on, hang on. I thought the active cancellation thing was supposed to make you undetected but now you're just talking about breaking the kill chain, which is what any jamming system does.
Posts: 376
By: panzerfeist1 - 19th February 2019 at 16:24 Permalink
Thank you guys for the responses.
Posts: 999
By: moon_light - 20th February 2019 at 03:05 Permalink
You are correct, i should have said the ratio is the same in both case.
By: Anonymous - 20th February 2019 at 07:16 Permalink
Momentum Builds For U.S. Navy To Declare The F-35C Combat-Ready
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"large","data-attachmentid":3851996}[/ATTACH]https://aviationweek.com/defense/momentum-builds-us-navy-declare-f-35c-…
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 20th February 2019 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 20th February 2019 at 14:51
In the meanwhile USAF is going to order 80 F-15X (Bloomberg)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/air-force-wants-eight-upgraded-boeing-fighters-along-with-f-35s
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 20th February 2019 at 15:28 Permalink
8 in 2020 and up to 80 in the next 5 years.
I am not sure this is a good news for the Eurocanards, invariably lowering the cost and increasing the attractiveness of their major competitor.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 20th February 2019 at 16:03 Permalink
Ah forgot. Trump signed a bill to prevent sales of F-35 to Turkey.
By: Anonymous - 21st February 2019 at 05:03 Permalink
Don't count on the USAF "ever" getting the F-15X.....:stupid:
By: Anonymous - 21st February 2019 at 05:05 Permalink
It's called "politics" and in the end Turkey will get the F-35. (and the Patriot) ;)
By: Anonymous - 21st February 2019 at 05:06 Permalink
Never going to happen....:cool:
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 21st February 2019 at 11:50 Permalink
It is probably going to happen because in several area the F-15 is still a beast and can, for example, lift very large ammos (such as hypersonic missiles). It ca also be much faster for a "push". So why not?
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 21st February 2019 at 17:49 Permalink
"Why not" because it's more expensive and you don't buy a fighter and then come up with a mission, you define the mission and then buy the aircraft.
The "mission" is to replace CONUS ANG F-15Cs that will never need to haul a hypersonic missile, never carry more than 4 AMRAAMs, never go above mach 1.2 in combat, etc.
Stop trying to excuse what is so obviously a Corporate Welfare buy that the USAF has repeatedly said that they do not have a mission for and do not want.
Posts: 550
By: St. John - 21st February 2019 at 18:19 Permalink
The Boeing lobby is strong.
Posts: 203
By: F/A-XX - 22nd February 2019 at 02:51 Permalink - Edited 25th February 2019 at 02:11
If the USAF has to get some F-15Xs they'd be better off with two-seaters to supplement the F-15E fleet. The F-35A is a great aircraft but it doesn't have quite the same legs. Had they the money I imagine the USAF would want a new design to replace the F-15E and it would probably be the size of the F-111 if not slightly larger.
If the DoD was serious about getting some new thoroughbred air-superiority fighters to replace aging F-15s then we should cough up the cash and pay to restart production of an updated F-22. Yet I don't think it is being taken that seriously. This F-15X order is just about keeping Boeing's military division busy and the production line running. It's quite unfortunate some short-sighted individuals prevented the same from being done with the the F-22, which the USAF actually wanted more of.
Posts: 550
By: St. John - 22nd February 2019 at 10:24 Permalink
I agree, the F-22 was originally planned to replace the F-15C/D, and that's exactly what it should have done. Cutting production short just led to a ridiculously high unit price.